Conference PaperPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

As robots and other technologies take over tasks previously performed by construction workers and planners, the concern about the future of jobs and wages will increase. While digital fabrication (dfab), and particularly the use of robotic technology, has the potential to improve productivity, it should not necessarily reduce total employment in the construction sector in the long run. It is expected that existing roles will evolve, mainly related to the human-robot interaction, and new roles will be created (e.g., in addition to designers there would be a need for employees with digital skills). Particular attention should be made to the transition phase in which conflicts may occur between the old and new systems and planning methods. This will occur for different functions and services during the planning and execution of construction projects. Focusing on the construction phase of a concrete wall using additive dfab for the NEST building located in Dübendorf, Switzerland, the different roles were evaluated. From this study, it seems that robotic technologies and conventional construction will coexist next to each other for a while, leading to a higher job variability and the creation of new roles, such as dfab managers to support coordination required, dfab programmers to develop computer numerical control that can be implemented with industrial robots, or dfab technicians to support robotic systems. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty, making it difficult to quantify employment impacts. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of using dfab to the functional division, supply chain and business models of the AEC industry, and to assess additional social impacts, such as changes in education schemes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
CCC 2018
Proceedings of the Creative Construction Conference (2018)
Edited by: Miroslaw J. Skibniewski & Miklos Hajdu
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
Corresponding author: garcia.de.soto@nyu.edu
Creative Construction Conference 2018, CCC 2018, 30 June - 3 July 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Rethinking the roles in the AEC industry to accommodate digital
fabrication
Borja García de Sotoa,b,*, Isolda Agustí-Juanc, Samuel Jossd, Jens Hunheviczd, Guillaume Habertc,
Bryan Adeyc
aNew York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD), Saadiyat Island, Experimental Research Building, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE
bNew York University (NYU), Tandon School of Engineering, 6 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
cInstitute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, Zurich, 8093, Switzerland
dETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, Zurich, 8093, Switzerland
Abstract
As robots and other technologies take over tasks previously performed by construction workers and planners, the concern about the
future of jobs and wages will increase. While digital fabrication (dfab), and particularly the use of robotic technology, has the
potential to improve productivity, it should not necessarily reduce total employment in the construction sector in the long run. It is
expected that existing roles will evolve, mainly related to the human-robot interaction, and new roles will be created (e.g., in addition
to designers there would be a need for employees with digital skills). Particular attention should be made to the transition phase in
which conflicts may occur between the old and new systems and planning methods. This will occur for different functions and
services during the planning and execution of construction projects. Focusing on the construction phase of a concrete wall using
additive dfab for the NEST building located in Dübendorf, Switzerland, the different roles were evaluated. From this study, it seems
that robotic technologies and conventional construction will coexist next to each other for a while, leading to a higher job variability
and the creation of new roles, such as dfab managers to support coordination required, dfab programmers to develop computer
numerical control that can be implemented with industrial robots, or dfab technicians to support robotic systems. However, there is
still a lot of uncertainty, making it difficult to quantify employment impacts. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate the
impacts of using dfab to the functional division, supply chain and business models of the AEC industry, and to assess additional
social impacts, such as changes in education schemes.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Diamond Congress Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2018.
Keywords: construction automation; digital fabrication (dfab); human-robot interaction; industrialized construction; integrated project delivery
(IPD); project delivery and contract strategies, robotic construction; roles in the AEC industry
1. Introduction
Construction is distinguished from manufacturing in that the bulk of the production tasks typically occurs in a field
setting and is undertaken in an uncontrolled environment [1]. Moreover, buildings are complex systems that cannot be
conceived as serial products, such as an automobile for example [2]. Each building is designed and constructed
according to specific conditions and stakeholder decisions, making automation harder to implement when compared to
other industries (e.g., manufacturing). Automation involves machines, tools, devices, installations, and systems that are
all platforms developed by humans to perform a given set of activities without human involvement. Although there are
many definitions for automation, mostly depending on the sector in which it is used, there is no doubt that it is powerful.
As Nof [3] said, automation has a tremendous impact on civilization, on humanity, and it may carry risks.” For this
study, the concept of automation is directly related to the use of robotic systems or robots to assist construction workers
or to perform construction tasks during onsite operations. In particular, this study deals with onsite robotic fabrication
applied to additive construction, referred in this study as digital fabrication (dfab).
82
Despite the fact that the construction industry is one of the oldest and represents a significant part of a country’s
GDP, it is also one of the most unfamiliar regarding the R&D fields for the automation community [4]. However, the
research of robotic fabrication and robotic systems applied to construction operations is not new and has been around
since the 80s. In 1984 Warszawski [5] published one of the first critiques about the use of robots in the building sector,
trying to examine robot requirements, implementation and economic feasibility of their application. Exploratory studies
were conducted in the fields of infrastructure ([6], [7], [8], [9]), digital design and production [10], surveying [11],
prefabrication ([12], [13]) and assembly [14]. In addition, researchers started investigating the feasibility of robotic
applications in various architecture and construction activities ([15], [16], [17]) and also for freeform construction
([18], [19]). Combination of construction automation with robotics has also been investigated ([20], [4]). However,
early attempts in robotic construction did not succeed mostly because of the lack of computation power, and partly
because of the highly specialized character of the robot developed and used [21].
Although the use of robotic systems, mainly those used onsite, is still very limited (a few examples include the
Semi-Automated Mason [22] and the In situ Fabricator [23]), they are becoming technically and economically possible,
and it is expected that they will gradually be used in the industry as cost-effective solutions are found. Another driving
force pushing contractors to give a more serious look at robotics and automation is the shortage of construction
workers. The aging working population coupled with the lack of new generation joining the construction workforce
are giving construction companies a hard time finding qualified labor [24]. According to a survey by Autodesk and the
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), 70% percent of construction firms are having difficulties finding
qualified craft workers to hire during growing construction demand [25]. This interest is not new. Something similar
happened in the 1980s in Japan, where construction demand was booming. However, construction jobs were not
attractive to young Japanese generations which triggered a substantial investment and research into construction
robotics. After a significant amount of resources invested in the development of highly customized automation systems
and robots, the technical excellence was never matched by economic success, causing the abandonment of the robotic
pursuit in construction [26].
The study presented in this paper provides an outlook of the findings during the evaluation of an ongoing project in
Switzerland in which robots are used for digital fabrication on site. Particular attention was given to the changing roles
during the construction execution phase. Given the research and prototype nature of the case study, the observations
from this study should only be considered as exploratory and not as a generalization for the construction industry.
However, this type of studies can be useful to evaluate trends and changes in the roles of other projects and eventually
forge new directions in the construction sector.
2. Current situation
2.1. Uncertain impacts on labor and workforce
As robots and other technologies take over tasks previously performed by construction workers, there will be a
disruption in the current roles, from laborers to designers. This transformation in the construction sector will be
accompanied by the concern about the future of jobs and an increase in wages. According to [27] 41% of construction
jobs in Germany are at high risk of automation by 2030. 35% in the US, 26% in Japan and 24% in the UK. Studies for
other industries have also investigated the effect of robots and automation to the social dimension. Frey and Osborne
[28] estimated that around 47% of total US employment has a “high risk of computerization” by the 2030s, while the
estimations by Arntz et al. [29] were quite a bit lower, only 10%. The findings in [27] are somewhere in between,
estimating that 35% of US jobs are in danger of being lost to the robots. Recent debates about the future of jobs have
mainly focused on whether or not they are at risk of automation ([27], [28], [29], [30]). Most studies have minimized
the potential effects of automation on job creation, and have tended to ignore other relevant trends, including
globalization, population aging, urbanization, and the rise of the green economy [31].
Although some studies and projections are pessimistic about the impacts to labor [28], others give a more optimistic
view ([29], [32]), which is shared by the authors. The creation of new and specialized roles always happens when new
technologies are introduced, and it is expected that the same will occur in the construction sector. While dfab will
increase productivity ([33], [34]) it should not necessarily reduce total employment in the long run. On the contrary,
robots and automation will create new jobs and provide new opportunities. It is expected that existing roles will evolve,
especially during the transition phase (i.e., human-robot interaction), and new roles will be created. As indicated by
[35], instead of drafters there would be a need for workers with more digital skills. This will occur for different
functions and services, including planning and execution. The exact impact of the need of new roles, such as dfab
Technicians to support robotic systems, dfab Programmers to develop computer numerical control that can be
implemented with industrial robots, or dfab Managers and Coordinators, needs to be investigated in future research.
One of the main advantages of using robotics in construction has to do with the potential to assist construction workers
during the performance of repetitive or dangerous construction tasks in an autonomous manner, or with little
supervision from laborers. This has the potential to make workers safer and reduce hazards, while also increasing
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
83
productivity and benefitting the whole construction industry [36]. In addition, quality is expected to improve as robots
would be able to deal with quality issues during production [37].
When comparing to traditional construction project phases, digital fabrication brings a significant change,
particularly during the planning and construction phases. Digital fabrication introduces sophisticated human-robot
collaboration based on robot sensory inputs. This builds a common base for exchange and collaboration among
participants of different skillsets and machines. Many publications are about robots taking our jobs [38], or how
machine learning, artificial intelligence, and automation, with the potential of outperforming humans, will eventually
cause manual jobs to disappear ([39], [40]). The reality is far from those views, and current robotic systems and
artificial intelligence are limited in their abilities to replace humans due to their inability to understand the complexity
of our most basic real environment ([41]). Despite the unquestionable advancements in those areas, robots will not
replace humans but will help them to make some tasks more efficient.
2.2. Traditional roles and responsibilities
The number of stakeholders in construction projects varies significantly, but in general, their number is
considerable, and their interactions are complex [42]. The most basic parties can be grouped into the owner (or project
sponsor), the designer/engineer, the contractor, financial/legal/marketing institutions, and the general public/user.
These main parties have different important roles involved. For purposes of this study, we will focus on the
designer/engineer and the contractor during the design and execution phases as indicated in Table 1. The different
terminology used and key responsibilities are according to the service model from the Swiss Society of Engineers and
Architects [43]. Slight variations regarding their name and responsibilities might be observed in different countries.
Table 1. Main roles and their key responsibilities
Role
Main task
Planning/design
Leading designer/planner (project manager)
To coordinate the design/planning team
Designer/engineer
To design a particular part of the project and often does the specialist site management
for the part planned/designed
CAD drafters
To prepare detailed technical plans or drawings
Construction
Construction manager
To coordinate the planning and execution of work on-site as a representative of the
owner
Site supervisor
To manage contractor’s team by assisting with the monitoring of onsite operations.
Typically under the supervision of the construction manager
Worker
To do the manual execution of the planned work, in most cases with the support of
machines and tools
3. Case study
The investigation of the different processes and interaction among the project participants was done from February
to July 2017 by graduate students doing their Master Theses at the department of Civil Engineering in ETH Zurich.
They used the planning and execution of some elements from the NEST (Next Evolution in Sustainable Building
Technologies) building, a research and innovation building being built at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Science and Technology (Empa by its German acronym) in Dübendorf, Switzerland. The observations made are only
an excerpt of the ongoing processes of the NEST building. The NEST building is the backbone of several units aimed
to test and advance technologies, materials, and systems under real conditions. One of those units is the DFAB HOUSE,
a project lead by Empa in collaboration with the NCCR Digital Fabrication, ETH Zurich, and industrial partners. The
unit consists of a three-story building (Figure 1).
Having several floors was done on purpose to show that dfab is possible for multi-story buildings. The DFAB
HOUSE consists of four sub-projects, each carried out by a research team. The sub-projects are the Mesh Mould Wall,
the Smart Slab, the Smart Dynamic Casting, and the Spatial Timber Assemblies. The different projects are summarized
in Table 2.
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
84
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) Empa’s NEST building; (b) Different components of the DFAB HOUSE (source: NCCR Digital Fabrication, 2017).
The organization of the DFAB HOUSE project is rather complex since the two big entities EMPA and NCCR, as
well as all other consultants and contractors, have to be integrated. The complicated organizational form is a direct
consequence of the different research projects, involving many parties and decision makers. However, given the
research nature of the project, there is a collaborative interaction among all the stakeholders not common in most public
construction projects. The project delivery approach used was a combination between the Design-Build and Integrated
Project Delivery System (IPD) [44], which allowed a superposition between the planning and execution phases as well
as a fusion between the planner, designer, and contractor through collaborative interaction, particularly during the early
phases of the project.
Table 2. Different projects for the DFAB HOUSE and general description
General description
To produce freeform loadbearing walls that can contain building services, with a steel mesh, assembled robotically
on site with the In situ Fabricator
To investigate the potential of additive manufacturing (3D printing) for the prefabrication of large-scale lightweight
integrative building components
To automatically produce structures with variable geometry using the slip-forming technology
To prefabricate a timber module robotically and assemble the elements on site
The project schedule was done using lean principles, in particular, the use of the Last Planner System. In addition,
frequent meetings were also conducted among the different teams to ensure proper coordination. Although those
meetings did not strictly follow the scrum concept [45], mostly because many of the artifacts were not considered, they
followed a similar structure. As a coordination tool for the architect, the project manager, the designers and the research
teams, several systems (e.g., Favro, Trimble) were used. The shared online platform was accepted and used by all
participants since it was intuitive and familiar for most team members.
3.1. Evolution of existing roles and creation of new ones
The evaluation of the traditional roles observed during the planning and execution during the five months of
interaction with the different participants at the DFAB HOUSE is summarized below. Only the roles related to the case
study are addressed. There might be a number of additional roles which would be affected or would be created but are
not considered in this study; therefore, the roles identified here should be used for illustration purposes only and not
meant for generalization to the construction industry adopting automation and new technologies.
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
85
3.1.1. Planning phase
During the planning phase, most of the traditional roles are still applicable, but with some modifications regarding
their primary tasks. For example, the project manager maintains most tasks as they are now, but as the projects become
more automated or influenced by new technology, the coordination among the different project participants will be
shifted towards new roles (e.g., dfab Manager). The role of engineers and designers during this phase will also remain
very similar. Main changes were related to the implementation of the new working platform (e.g., using BIM) and
using new software applications, such as the specialized plug-ins developed for the DFAB HOUSE. Similarly, CAD
drafters would not change too much, only they will need to adapt to the new parametric software used to represent the
different elements specified by the engineers/designers, their involvement would also be reduced as the automation of
the project increases, but their need will not disappear completely. Also, new roles would be required. For example,
dfab Managers, dfab Coordinators, or dfab Programmers.
The dfab Manager is a new role. This role arises once dfab becomes more preponderant in a project (similar to BIM
managers in BIM-based projects). Some of the key tasks of the dfab Manager include:
Writing and enforcing the dfab report (a report defining the scope of dfab) in cooperation with the project
manager, the owner, and the involved designers.
Defining the dfab goals.
Defining the tasks, competencies, and liabilities concerning dfab for the different project participants.
Defining the standards for the BIM models, model use, model exchange during planning, execution, and operation
(at least the model handover to the owner).
Defining the standards of dfab on the construction site. This includes soft- and hardware standards and interface
and communication protocols used.
The dfab Manager is a highly experienced the field of dfab and knows the constraints of automated construction
systems in general, and what are the elements to implement during the planning phase in order to have an efficient
execution. She or he advises the owner regarding which level of automation might be optimal for the project. Since
the whole set up of the project is done at the beginning of the project, the dfab Manager is also required then, or at the
latest when the planner is hired. Once the set-up is done, the dfab Manager service for the project is done, and she or
he might only be called for further strategic question arising during the planning process. The BIM manager could be
brought into the project either as a client advisor or (specialist) consultant.
The role of the dfab Coordinator arises as soon as there is model coordination in a standardized way. Her or his
level of expertise in the field of dfab is not as much as that of the dfab Manager. Since the planning of automated
construction is suggested to be added to the BIM software, the main tasks of the dfab Coordinator include:
Determining the coordination and methods required.
Checking and validating of partial models (clash-detection), including the automated construction planning on
site.
Determining the necessary corrections, together with the project manager and the involved planners.
The dfab Coordinator is required in the project as soon as the BIM platform is set up. Her or his mandate would
normally be included in the mandate for the project manager, meaning the planning office must have the necessary
dfab knowledge and people. This is usually during the preliminary project or the construction project. Her or his role
only ends once the models are delivered to the client during the close-out.
The role of the designer’s dfab Programmer is related to software design, which could be adapted from project to
project. The main tasks would include coordination of the software (including fixing compatibility issues between
participants and installation of plug-ins) and organization of the data storage and backup. The dfab Programmer is in
charge of everything related to software, preparing it, so that the planners can work at their level of understanding of
informatics. The dfab Programmer is mainly required in the planning process, as soon as the BIM platform is set-up,
which is done in the preliminary project. It could be thinkable that the organization that is managing the project also
brings in the programmer since their work is related. She or he stays available for the construction manager during the
execution.
The utilization of these roles, or their participation share, changes depending on the amount of automation or
technology (i.e., the level of digitalization) used in a project. A qualitative representation of this participation based on
the level of digitalization is shown in Figure 2. Only the roles being discussed are considered (other roles might be
applicable) and the variation shown is a qualitative assessment from the author’s observation of the case study. As
depicted in Figure 2, the dfab Manager and the dfab Programmer only appear at an increased level of digitalization,
since at low levels the tasks lay within the competences and knowledge of the current roles.
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
86
Fig. 2. Qualitative share of participation of each role vs. degree of digitalization during in the planning phase.
3.1.2. Execution phase
During the execution phase, most of the traditional roles are still applicable, but with some modifications regarding
their main tasks or level of involvement. For example, the construction manager maintains most tasks as they are now;
however, there is a shift of their workload due to the availability and reliability of information (e.g., fewer efforts to
monitor and control schedule and cost, but more efforts to coordinate with programmers). Similar to the construction
manager, the site supervisor’s scope does not change a lot, but the workload shifts towards detail planning and
monitoring of the robotic systems from a control room. With regards to the construction worker, her or his presence
would be affected based on the amount of automation and digitalization used. One can think of this as an evolution
from construction worker to dfab Technician. This would be an individual with experience in the execution of specific
tasks, and that has been trained to operate or provide support to one or a few automated systems, similar to operators
of heavy machinery (e.g., cranes, excavators) in current projects. Some of their tasks would include setting up the
machine on site, supply the system with raw material. In essence, the dfab Technician does all standard tasks that are
required to ensure a smooth development of the automated construction processes.
Another new role is the contractor’s dfab Programmer. The scope defined for the designers’ dfab Programmer
during the planning phase is also applicable to her or him, but only internally to the contractor. However, for the
internal task, there is a main difference: while the tasks of the designer’s programmer are about creating the framework
for planning, the tasks for the contractor’s programmer consist of deducing the necessary codes for the robots from the
BIM model. This also consists of the temporal planning (4D, in active interaction with the site supervisor and
coherently to the timeline defined by the planners). The whole planning can then be checked by the dfab Coordinator,
including the planning of all different contractors, showing the problematic points easily. The dfab Programmer is
involved in the process as soon as the contractor is involved. Her or his work is then ongoing for detail-programming
and adaption until the building is erected.
Similar to the planning phase, the participation share of the different roles would change depending on the level of
digitalization of a project. A qualitative representation of their participation, based on the level of digitalization, is
shown in Figure 3. Only the roles being discussed are considered (other roles might be applicable) and the variation
shown is a qualitative assessment from the author’s observation of the case study.
Fig. 3. Qualitative share of participation of each role vs. degree of digitalization during in the execution phase.
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
87
4. Conclusion and outlook
The creation of new and specialized roles always happens when new technologies are introduced, and it is expected
that the same will occur in the construction sector. When comparing to traditional construction project phases, digital
fabrication brings a significant change, particularly in the planning and execution phases. As a result, it is expected
that current construction roles evolve, and new roles are created. There will always be tasks that will not be fully
automated. The construction workers will not disappear, but their number will be reduced as the level of digitalization
of a project increases. What is expected to occur is that the responsibilities of the construction workers will shift from
unsafe and hard conditions to safer and less labor intensive, such as to monitor and control automated processes by
transferring their know-how to the robotic systems. Although this study is not meant to be an exact representation of
how the AEC roles will change, it opens the debate and research in this area, so that future studies can use this work
as a guideline.
Further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of using dfab to the functional division, supply chain, and business
models, as wells as the project delivery and contract strategies of the AEC industry, and to assess additional social
impacts, such as changes in education and training schemes.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Digital Fabrication, which
was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number 51NF40_141853). We would like to thank the
different research teams from the DFAB HOUSE at the NEST building; special thanks are given to Konrad Graser and
Pascal Breitenstein for their support during the work conducted in this study.
References
[1] Saidi K.S., OʼBrien J.B., Lytle A.M. (2008). Robotics in Construction. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_48
[2] Gramazio, F., Kohler, M. & Willmann, J. (2014). The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture, Park Books.
[3] Nof S.Y. (2009). Automation: What It Means to Us Around the World. In: Nof S. (eds) Springer Handbook of Automation. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7_3
[4] Balaguer, C., Abderrahim, M., (2008). Robotics and Automation in Construction, University Carlos III of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. ISBN:
978-953-7619-13-8
[5] Warszawski, A. (1984). Robotics in Building Construction, Technical Report R-84-147, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA
[6] Herbsman, Z., and Ellis, R. (1988). Potential application of robotics in highway construction, Proceedings of the 5th International
Symposium on Robotics in Construction, Japan Industrial Robot Association, Tokyo, Japan, June, 299-308
[7] Kobayashi, T., Honda, S., & Tsukhara, Y. (1988). Study on a robotic system for pavement cutting work. In Proc, 5th Int. Symp. on Robotics
in Constr., Japan Industrial Robot Association, Tokyo, Japan, June (pp. 289-298).
[8] Skibniewski, M., Hendrickson, H. (1990). Automation and robotics for road construction and maintenance, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 114(3), 261-271
[9] Caldas, C., and Goodrum, P. (2010). Construction Robotics: The Dream vs. Reality, White Paper #125, Construction Industry Institute (CII),
Austin, TX, Retrieved June 25, 2015, from https://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/btsc-pubs/CII-BTSC-125.doc
[10] Bock, T., (2008). Digital design and robotic production 3-D shaped precast components, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, M.J. Skibniewski
(Eds.), The 25th International Symposium on Automation in Construction, Technika, Vilnius, 2008, 1121, ISARC-2008, Selected papers
[11] Vähä, P., Heikkilä, T., Kilpeläinen, P., Järviluoma, M., & Gambao, E. (2013). Extending automation of building construction—Survey on
potential sensor technologies and robotic applications. Automation in Construction, 36, 168-178.
[12] Benjaoran, V., Dawood, N. (2006). Intelligent approach to production planning system for bespoke precast concrete products, Automation in
Construction, 15, 737 745
[13] Hu, W (2005). Automatic Construction Process of Prefabricated Buildings on Geometric Reasoning, Proceedings of Construction Research
Congress (CRC) 2005, San Diego, CA, USA
[14] Chu, B., Jung, K., Lim, M., and Hong, D. (2013). Robot-Based Construction Automation: An Application to Steel Beam Assembly (Part I),
Automation in Construction, 32, 4661
[15] Boles, W., Maxwell, W. (1995). Construction Automation and Robotics, Pathway to Implementation, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 121(1), 143-152
[16] Everett, J. G., & Slocum, A. H. (1994). Automation and robotics opportunities: construction versus manufacturing. Journal of construction
engineering and management, 120(2), 443-452
[17] Warszawski, A. and Rosenfeld, Y. (1994). Robot for Interior Finishing of Works in Building Feasibility Analysis, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 124 (1), 31-41
[18] Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F. & Thorpe, T. (2012). Developments in construction-scale additive
manufacturing processes. Automation in Construction, 21, 262-268.
[19] Buswell, R.A., Soar, R.C., Gibb, A.G.F. & Thorpe, A. (2007). Freeform Construction: Mega-scale Rapid Manufacturing for construction,
Automation in Construction, 16, 224-231
[20] Morales, G., Herbzman, Z., Najafi, F., T. (1999). Robots and construction automation, Proceedings of ISARC 1999, 16th Automation and
Robotics in Construction, Madrid, Spain, 283-288
[21] Balaguer, C., Gambao, E. and Gebhardt, F., (1999). A Robotic System for Automated Masonry, Journal of Automation in Construction, 599-
602
[22] SAM100 (n.d.) Semi-Automated Mason by Construction Robotics. Available at http://www.construction-robotics.com/sam100/ (accessed on
October 15, 2017)
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
88
[23] Giftthaler, M., Sandy, T., Dörfler, K., Brooks, I., Buckingham, M., Rey, G., . . . Buchli, J. (2017). Mobile robotic fabrication at 1: 1 scale:
The in situ fabricator. Construction Robotics, 1-12
[24] Harris, C. (2018). Construction worker shortage a global issue: UK expert. Available at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/102064018/construction-worker-shortage-a-global-issue-uk-expert (accessed on March 12, 2018)
[25] AGC (2017). Seventy-Percent of Contractors Have a Hard Time Finding Qualified Craft Workers to Hire Amid Growing Construction
Demand, National Survey Finds. The Associated General Contractors of America. Available at
https://www.agc.org/news/2017/08/29/seventy-percent-contractors-have-hard-time-finding-qualified-craft-workers-hire-am-0 (accessed on
March 10, 2018)
[26] Bechthold, M. (2010). The return of the future: a second go at robotic construction. Architectural Design, 80(4), 116-121
[27] Berriman, R. (2017) Will robots steal our jobs? The potential impact of automation on the UK and other major economies. PwC. Part of the
UK Economic Outlook March, 2017. Available at: http://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/ukeo/pwc-uk-economic-outlook-full-report-
march-2017-v2.pdf (accessed on April 2017)
[28] Frey, C. B., Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 114, 254280
[29] Arntz, M., Gregory, T., and Zierahn, U. (2016), The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis, OECD
Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 189, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en
[30] Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2017). Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets. NBER Working Paper No. 23285. Available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23285 (accessed on September 2017)
[31] Bakhshi, H., Downing, J., Osborne, M. and Schneider, P. (2017). The Future of Skills: Employment in 2030. London: Pearson and Nesta.
ISBN: 978-0-992-42595-1
[32] OECD (2016). Automation and Independent Work in a Digital Economy, Policy Brief on The Future of Work. OECD Publishing, Paris.
[33] Castro-Lacouture, D. (2009). Construction automation. In Springer handbook of automation (pp. 1063-1078). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7_61
[34] García de Soto, B., Agustí-Juan, I., Hunhevicz, J., Joss, S., Graser, K., Habert, G., and Adey, B. (2018). Productivity of digital fabrication in
construction: cost and time analysis of a robotically built wall. Automation in Construction, 92, 297-311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.04.004
[35] Gerbert, P., Castagnino, S., Rothballer, C., Renz, A., Filitz, R. (2016). Digital in Engineering and Construction. The Transformative Power of
Building Information Modeling. The Boston Consulting Group. Available at http://futureofconstruction.org/content/uploads/2016/09/BCG-
Digital-in-Engineering-and-Construction-Mar-2016.pdf (accessed on May 13, 2017)
[36] Bernold, L. E. (1987). Automation and robotics in construction: a challenge and a chance for an industry in transition. International Journal of
Project Management, 5(3), 155-160
[37] Tilley, J. (2017). Automation, robotics, and the factory of the future. McKinsey & Company. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/automation-robotics-and-the-factory-of-the-future (accessed on
January 2, 2018)
[38] Fagan, D. (2017). Will technology take your job? New analysis says more of us are safer than we thought, but not all. Available at:
https://theconversation.com/will-technology-take-your-job-new-analysis-says-more-of-us-are-safer-than-we-thought-but-not-all-86219
(accessed on 11/01/2017)
[39] Welsh, S. (2016). Are we ready for Robotopia, when robots replace the human workforce? Available at: https://theconversation.com/are-we-
ready-for-robotopia-when-robots-replace-the-human-workforce-63653 (accessed on October 15, 2017)
[40] Waters, R. (2017). The impact of cobots on workers’ wellbeing. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/a0b8e562-3734-11e7-99bd-
13beb0903fa3 (accessed on 09/22/2017)
[41] Moniz, A. B., & Krings, B. J. (2016). Robots working with humans or humans working with robots? Searching for social dimensions in new
human-robot interaction in industry. Societies, 6(3), 23.
[42] Cleland, D. I. 1986. Project Stakeholder Management. Project Management Journal 17(4):3644.
[43] SIA 112 (2001): Service Model. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich
[44] AIA, (2017). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. The American Institute of Architects, AIA, Version 1, 2007. Available at
https://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf (accessed on April 24, 2017)
[45] Streule, T., Miserini, N., Bartlomé, O., Klippel, M., & Garcia de Soto, B. (2016). Implementation of scrum in the construction industry.
Procedia engineering, 164, 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.619
CCC 2018 Proceedings
DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-012
89
... There is a potential of dfab to improve productivity and return on investment by reducing wastes in time, materials and human resources in construction, in particular for bespoke or highly-customised building components (Bock 2004(Bock , 2008de Soto et al. 2018a). Nevertheless, the industry is not yet familiar with full-scale implementation of dfab; dfab requires new approaches to project delivery and collaborative work systems to cope with the integrated design and construction processes (de Soto et al. 2018b). ...
... Mocerino (2018) discusses how additive manufacturing, in line with lean construction and robotics, could improve productivity and efficiency, and reduce errors and costs through BIM and lean construction. Based on the case study of the DFAB HOUSE in Switzerland adopting the Last Planner System and lean principles, de Soto et al. (2018b) explore the collaborative work culture with dfab and the new roles created for dfab in construction. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Digital Fabrication (dfab) is emerging as a new technical and computational approach for the architecture and construction industry. However, managing dfab requires processes to account for integrated design and construction processes. Lean construction management and design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) offer two potential strategies for managing dfab. Although dfab, DfMA and lean have each been of wide interest among scholars, little research has examined their potential synergies. This paper conducts a literature review of all papers based on the authors' knowledge that discuss at least two of the three topics, and identifies common practices shared between the lean, DfMA and dfab.Two practices –design to target value and concurrent engineering –are found to be shared by all the three topics. Further, seven practices shared by two of the three topics: pull-planning, design-to-cost, standardisation, Jidoka, Just-in-Time, design-to-construct and knowledge sharing. This paper demonstrates the opportunities for synergies between lean, DfMA and dfab, and concludes with suggestions for future research to further investigate implementation of lean management for dfab in construction.
... Qualitative share of participation of each role vs. degree of digitalization during the planning phase (adapted from Garc ıa deSoto et al. 2018b). ...
... Qualitative share of participation of each role vs. degree of digitalization during the execution phase (adapted from Garc ıa deSoto et al. 2018b). ...
Article
The counterpart of Industry 4.0 in the AEC/FM industry is known as Construction 4.0. Its essence is the digitalization and automation of the AEC/FM industry. As robots and other technologies make their way into the different phases of the lifecycle of construction projects, the concern about the future of jobs and wages will increase. While the use of robotics has the potential to improve productivity and safety, it should not necessarily reduce total employment in the construction sector in the long run. It is expected that existing roles will evolve, and new roles will be created (e.g., in addition to designers there will be a need for employees with digital skills). Focusing on the construction phase of a robotically built concrete wall, the different roles were evaluated. From this study, it was found that there will be a time in which conventional construction and robotic technologies will coexist, leading to a higher job variability and new roles, both at the managerial and operations/execution levels. Although this study is not meant to be an exact representation of how the AEC/FM roles will change as a consequence of Construction 4.0, it opens the debate and research in this area.
... According to the World Economic Forum, improving efficiency and global productivity in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC sector by 1% could save as much as $100 trillion a year [27,28]. The unique manufacturing scale affects the difficulty of adapting new manufacturing technologies available in other industries [29], mainly because of insufficiently skilled professionals [30]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Contemporary interdisciplinary design requires architects' knowledge and cooperation with such fields as construction, material engineering, fabrication methods, and knowledge in optimisation of the design process, production, and minimisation of used materials and energy. Following the example of other disciplines, contemporary architecture seeks inspiration from Nature on various levels. The development of modern tools and materials opens unprecedented opportunities for designers to shape free forms with precision, following sustainable development guidelines. The article presents the influence of biomimicry inspiration on shaping spatial structures of 20th and 21st-century architecture. The primary conclusion of the review indicates the need for further implementing bio-logic strategies into interdisciplinary, holistic building design.
... It is apparent that through Construction 4.0, more robots will be introduced in the work environment. It is expected that robotic technologies and conventional construction will coexist (Garcia de Soto et al., 2018b), this means that the human-machine relationship will continue to evolve, making the human interaction with those systems a very important component. A significant amount of research has been made to get a better understating of how machines and artificial intelligent systems should act. ...
Chapter
The idea of using robots and automating construction sites is not new – the first research and publications on construction robotics date back to the 1970s in the former Soviet Union. By the mid-1980s, robotic systems were developed and introduced for inspection tasks on a radioactively contaminated building site. By 1991, the first full-scale application of construction automation was materialized in Japan. Fast-forward almost four decades, and when you look around on construction sites, you will see that still, the use of robots and construction automation is very limited or non-existent. The industry still struggles to pass the prototype and research stages, and their development and applications are still considered experimental and mostly conducted by universities and research centers. The main reasons are mostly the same as those that prevented their implementation in the 1980s and 1990s. However, significant technological advancements are pushing the architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management (AEC/FM) industry towards digitalization and automation (known as Construction 4.0). Among enabling technologies available today that did not exist in the 1980s or 1990s are mobile and cloud computing/telecommunications, big data and deep learning, wireless sensor networks, and various BIM tools. Thoughtful implementation of these, together with classic and modern (e.g. collaborative, swarm) robotic technology concepts, can make a significant difference in the success of construction robot applications today as compared with what was available decades ago. In addition, the current legal environment, building codes, and regulations are probably now more inclined to allow flexibility to incorporate the changes in the industry, giving construction robots and automation a greater chance to succeed. These advancements will undoubtedly make more cost-effective applications, which will profoundly change the AEC/FM industry. Particular attention should be made to the transition phase, in which human-robot interaction will play an essential part. Also, close consideration should be given to conflicts that will arise regarding the conventional and new delivery systems, organizational structures, and social implications, as these will have a profound influence in the future of construction automation and robotics.
... As the level of digitalisation of a project increases, a consequent reduction in manual work in favour of automation is observed. Even if state-of-the-art research in AM for constructions still indicates that a degree of manual labour is and will probably always be needed in specific phases of the building process, this means a shift in responsibility from hard and unsafe, to safer and less labour intensive conditions of work [17]. ...
Article
Building on a large scale with Additive Manufacturing (AM) is one of the biggest manufacturing challenges of our time. In the last decade, the proliferation of 3D printing has allowed architects and engineers to imagine and develop constructions that can be produced additively. However, questions about the convenience of using this technology, and whether additive large-scale constructions can be feasible, efficient and sustainable are still open. In this research 3D printing is considered not as a question, but as an answer to the increasing scarcity of material resources in the construction industry. This paper illustrates the overarching process from concept to the realisation of the Trabeculae Pavilion, a load-responsive architecture that is entirely designed and optimized for 3D printing, using Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) - one of the most cost-effective additive techniques of production. The research methodology is based on a multi-scale computational workflow that integrates several aspects, such as material testing, bio-inspired design algorithms, multi-criteria optimization, and production management. The work culminates in the construction process of a full-scale architectural prototype; an anticlastic shell that features a cellular structure with increased material and structural efficiency.
Article
Concrete is to be considered as the ingredients of cement, fine sand, coarse aggregates sand and water. When these ingredient becomes hard as well as strong then this kind of material can be used for the building as a construction material. In general the concrete need to have the vibration so that the proper flow can be carried out. The concrete should reach to every corner as well as proper bonding of concrete and reinforcement bar is also needed. There is the technology called self-compacting concrete which is to be used to overcome the conventional concrete drawbacks. Self-compacted concrete flows from one corner to another corner with its own weight and don't need any kind of vibratory machine the self-compacting concrete close at the proper speed in the formwork of the building. The development is going on in the field of the precast construction. Since the precast construction has the advantage of faster construction it reduces the time as well as the cost. There are many advantages of the precast construction techniques considered to be a new technology and lead to the mass housing construction also. The present work consists of using self-compacted concrete in the precast structural member related to the staircase.
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents the concept of an In situ Fabricator, a mobile robot intended for on-site manufacturing, assembly and digital fabrication. We present an overview of a prototype system, its capabilities, and highlight the importance of high-performance control, estimation and planning algorithms for achieving desired construction goals. Next, we detail on two architectural application scenarios: first, building a full-size undulating brick wall, which required a number of repositioning and autonomous localisation manoeuvres. Second, the Mesh Mould concrete process, which shows that an In situ Fabricator in combination with an innovative digital fabrication tool can be used to enable completely novel building technologies. Subsequently, important limitations and disadvantages of our approach are discussed. Based on that, we identify the need for a new type of robotic actuator, which facilitates the design of novel full-scale construction robots. We provide brief insight into the development of this actuator and conclude the paper with an outlook on the next-generation In situ Fabricator, which is currently under development.
Article
Full-text available
The way in which construction projects are managed has not changed significantly in the last decades; however, stakeholders, materials, competition, and user requirements are continuously changing. This creates a gap between the current managerial view on how construction projects are conducted and how they could be managed to increase efficiency. The construction industry could use new frameworks for action in the project and product management, and learn from the experiences of other industries. With this background in mind, some construction companies are enhancing the performance of their project teams to improve their competitiveness and increase the added value to their clients and themselves. This paper investigates the implementation of a framework from the IT sector into the construction industry: Scrum. Conducting a case study, the implementation and application of Scrum was analysed through the evaluation of its different artifacts. This research covers the following questions: Can Scrum be implemented in the design phase of the construction industry? What adaptations are needed to use Scrum to improve the design phase of construction projects? How and where could Scrum, or parts of it, be used by the design and planning departments of construction companies? The results from this study show that Scrum has great potential in the design and planning departments of construction firms. From the analysis of the applications of Scrum in the case study, tangible benefits and weaknesses of the implementation, and its different artifacts, were identified. Finally, this paper gives recommendations about the use of Scrum in the design phase and proposes an outlook to implement Scrum in other phases of construction projects.
Article
Full-text available
The focus of the following article is on the use of new robotic systems in the manufacturing industry with respect to the social dimension. Since “intuitive” human–machine interaction (HMI) in robotic systems becomes a significant objective of technical progress, new models of work organization are needed. This hypothesis will be investigated through the following two aims: The first aim is to identify relevant research questions related to the potential use of robotic systems in different systems of work organization at the manufacturing shop-floor level. The second aim is to discuss the conceptualization of (old) organizational problems of human–robot interaction (HRI). In this context, the article reflects on the limits of cognitive and perceptual workload for robot operators in complex working systems. This will be particularly relevant whenever more robots with different “roles” are to be increasingly used in the manufacturing industry. The integration of such complex socio-technical systems needs further empirical and conceptual research with regard to “social” aspects of the technical dimension. Future research should, therefore, also integrate economic and societal issues to understand the full dimensions of new human–robot interaction in industry today. link to full text: http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/6/3/23
Article
We study the effects of industrial robots on US labor markets. We showtheoretically that robots may reduce employment and wages and thattheir local impacts can be estimated using variation in exposure to ro-bots—defined from industry-level advances in robotics and local indus-try employment. We estimate robust negative effects of robots on em-ployment and wages across commuting zones. We also show that areasmost exposed to robots after 1990 do not exhibit any differential trendsbefore then, and robots’impact is distinct from other capital and tech-nologies. One more robot per thousand workers reduces the employment-to-population ratio by 0.2 percentage points and wages by 0.42%.
Article
We examine how susceptible jobs are to computerisation. To assess this, we begin by implementing a novel methodology to estimate the probability of computerisation for 702 detailed occupations, using a Gaussian process classifier. Based on these estimates, we examine expected impacts of future computerisation on US labour market outcomes, with the primary objective of analysing the number of jobs at risk and the relationship between an occupations probability of computerisation, wages and educational attainment.